IRENE DAVID REALTY, INC. plf-ap, v. DAVID MOYAL def-res, 121 VARICK STREET CORP., Nominal def

10286. IRENE DAVID REALTY, INC. plf-ap, v. DAVID MOYAL def-res, 121 VARICK STREET CORP., Nominal def — Lawlor & Rella LLP, New York (Anthony J. Rella of counsel), for ap — White Fleischner & Fino LLP, New York (Benjamin A. Fleischner of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered March 26, 2012, which denied plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on their first, third and fifth causes of action to the extent based on allegations that defendants engaged in self-dealing in connection with the subleasing of the ground floor premises at 121 Varick Street, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

10286. IRENE DAVID REALTY, INC. plf-ap, v. DAVID MOYAL def-res, 121 VARICK STREET CORP., Nominal def — Lawlor & Rella LLP, New York (Anthony J. Rella of counsel), for ap — White Fleischner & Fino LLP, New York (Benjamin A. Fleischner of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered March 26, 2012, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on their first, third and fifth causes of action to the extent based on allegations that defendants engaged in self-dealing in connection with the subleasing of the ground floor premises at 121 Varick Street, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs, minority shareholders in 121 Varick Street Corp. (Varick), a commercial cooperative corporation, allege that defendant Moyal, as president of the board of directors, engaged in self-dealing and breached his fiduciary duties. Moyal owns two corporations that lease space on the ground floor of the building. Plaintiffs do not contend that Moyal was improperly involved in the approval of the primary leases between the two Moyal corporations and Varick, or that those leases were otherwise improper. Under the terms of the leases, the Moyal corporations have a right to enter into subleases, subject to board approval, and Varick has no interest in any profits made on such subleases. However, they complain that Moyal improperly participated in the board’s vote to approve a sublease between the two corporations and a third party, and that they will reap substantial profits from the sublease, while Varick will not benefit from the sublease at all.

IRENE DAVID REALTY, INC. plf-ap, v. DAVID MOYAL def-res, 121 VARICK STREET CORP., Nominal def

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal